Good news indeed!

"The President's Agenda Benefits All Americans By Keeping Taxes Low, Spending In Check, And Our Economy Growing"

WTF are you talking about?

Also we're a free market country, the president doesn't grow the economy, individuals do. All the president can do is increase government spending, this may be calculated in GDP but since no one actually chose to buy the stuff, it can't objectively be added at face value(although in terms of dollars it is). If you subtract the increased government spending from the increase in GDP, you'll find growth a little sluggish. This is like the liberal falacy that WWII got us out of the depression, even though non-military production fell.

"Last Week, President Bush Announced Steps At The Federal Level To Help Homeowners In Need Of Assistance To Avoid Foreclosure. The President has called on Congress to pass a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) modernization bill and to change a key housing provision of the Federal tax code so it does not harm families who are forced to sell their homes for less than their mortgage is worth. In addition, the President announced a new FHA initiative to help homeowners who have good credit but have been unable to make every mortgage payment on time because of rising payments."

So now if someone owns a 200k house that gets re-evaluated at 150k, and they decide to walk away, the tax payer pays 50k?

"The President Calls On Members Of Congress To Stand By Their Commitment To Pass Pending Free Trade Agreements With Peru, Colombia, Panama, And South Korea. These free trade agreements will create better-paying jobs for American workers and provide new opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs."

Calling something a Free Trade Agreement doesn't make it free trade, for free trade the government has to do literally nothing. This isn't free trade, it's managed trade under conditions. But I am glad we're moving in the direction of free-er trade.

"On August 9, The President Furthered His American Competitiveness Initiative By Signing The America COMPETES Act Into Law. This new law will help keep America the most innovative nation in the world by supporting doubling funding for basic research programs in the physical sciences..."

You would think that if an entrepreneur, that probably knew quite a bit about the market in his feild, could allready do research that he thought would make a return on investment, he would have allready done it.

Anyways communist China is in it's like 10th year of 10%+ growth.

The President's Agenda Benefits All Americans By Keeping Taxes Low, Spending In Check, And Our Economy Growing

While president deserves some credit, I have to disagree with the "Spending In Check" part. Spending has grown quite a bit under Dubya, and not just on defense.

The President Has Also Proposed Reforms To Make The Earmark Process More Transparent And Cut The Number And Cost Of Earmarks By At Least Half.

Where has this idea been for the last 6 years?

Office of the Press Secretary
(Sydney, Australia)

This is the second time that "Sydney, Australia" has turned up on a White House press release reprinted here at b4b. Is Tony Snow in Australia? If not, what's going on here?

robert,
Shooting from the hip are we?

Government spending isn’t calculated in GDP; GDP is a calculation of output not retail receipts or government budgeting. The government doesn’t produce, that which it purchases is produced, but the government ~ in and of itself ~ is not a consumer. Sorry Keynesians. That would be like the Keynesian myth that The New Deal got us out of the depression, even though production in government make-work projects couldn't be quantified into GDP (GNP).

Although you and I agree on the FHA bailout, it refinances the existing loan consistent with the actual value of the property; the current holder of the note is paid off and the loan is handled by FHA. Because the loan is paid substantially early the interest payments don’t accrue. The original lender receives a payoff and the loan isn’t in jeopardy, the borrower makes payments consistent with the value and the extra cost to the taxpayers is limited to the risk the FHA takes on any sub-prime loan.

So-called “Free Trade” is an agreement between nations to not use trade in goods and services as leverage for geopolitical gain. It establishes rules that governments must follow in dealing with tariffs, restrictions, LC’s, shipping and redress. It effectively forces governments to limit interference with trade

The majority of “basic research in physical sciences” is done via colleges and universities. Most of these are State run and cannot, by law make a profit. Once the “discoveries” are made, businesses in partnership with the institutions and the government can benefit from the technology. This is called technocracy and it’s been responsible for most of the scientific breakthroughs of the last century. Your "standard of living" owes nearly everything to this system.

Finally, China’s growth, although impressive from their standpoint is miniscule compared to our economy; US annual growth exceeds China's entire economy.

Ok and how many "net" jobs would that make Princella?

(crickets churp)

yes very nice princella except:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296026,00.html

I know details, details

What a pair of nit-wits!
Non-Farm job creation since January 2001; 7,319,000.

LiberalT-

Haven't you heard that harshin' the Bush buzz is extremely unAmerican? Stop it with all that reality talk.
Those boys got "THE math"

LibtardIT (aka Kblech), why the link? Can't you read? In the White House Press Release they acknowledge the loss of 4,000 non farm payroll jobs.

Are you complaining about the nearly 8,000,000 jobs added since 2003?

Are you complaining about incomes being up, taxes being down, economic growth in spite of terrorist attacks on the home soil?

Are you unbelievably cretinous? Definitely.

Stocks Drop After Weak Jobs Report
Sep 7 01:23 PM US/Eastern
By TIM PARADIS
AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Stocks fell sharply Friday but pared some of their losses and bonds surged higher after the government reported payrolls in August fell for the first time in four years rather than rising as had been expected. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 160 points.
Investors were unpleasantly surprised by the Labor Department's report that payrolls fell by 4,000 in August, the first decline since August 2003. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.6 percent as expected.

Apparently the capitalists are a little less enthusiastic about the Bush economy than you people are.

Jobs have been added at like an 20-40,000 a month for years now, and the left didn't give a hoot.. one month where it goes down 4,000 and they cry foul.

DL... I expected more from you...

Government spending isn’t calculated in GDP.

JESUS CHRIST!!! YES IT IS!!! In fact, the Income-Expenditure Identity is:
Y=C+I+G+NX

Y=GDP; C=Private Sector Consumption; I=Investments; G=Government Consumption; and NX=Net Exports.

Wow... DL... I am very disappointed in you...

Now... On to the post...

It is definitely good that jobs have been added during the last few years, but I think that it will be interesting to note how many jobs will be lost when the first wave of foreclosures hits (the next couple months). You have to wonder why this was released in the middle of a massive lending crisis...

Salve,

Typical of you liberals - take a snapshot in preference to a movie; the overall narrative of the economy is massive growth. You prefer to concentrate on one month's data...

Mark - you are kidding right. Note that you conveniently always start this discussion in 2003...

Unemployment rate when Bush started: 3.8%
Unemployment rate today: 4.6%

so if you look at the overall picture since Bush has been in charge - the unemployment rate has risen. Yes - obviously it has gone down since 2003 but it is higher now then when he started - period.

Your calculation is almost right, on the consumption side not on the output side. Aggregate demand (Y) is the sum total of consumption (C), capital investment (I), net exports (NX) and government spending (G). All of these variables except government spending are a direct function of the profit share (π). GDP Y = C(π) + I(π) + NX(π) + G.

To put it another way via Wikipedia Aggregate Demand is “it is the demand for the gross domestic product of a country when, and only when, it is in equilibrium (i.e. without changes in inventory).”

There is no “lending crises” there is a confidence crises (just like 1987).

GOP,
The blockhead doesn't even lie well, unemployment had risen to 4.2% by January 2001 when Clintoon left office. Before the attack on the US in September of that year which added more than 1,000,000 jobs to the ranks of the unemployed. A true testament to our economy that we were able to absorb those losses and add an additional 7 million more.

DL-

I would tend to disagree with your critique of my formula... The Wikipedia article on GDP references the exact same formula that I gave... The formula that I gave was in my Macroeconomics text book, which, coincidentally, was written by Ben Bernanke, the current FED chairman.

Just so you know, I would call a 25% increase in foreclosures and rising default rates a "lending crisis." Just look at the markets... the current volatility (trending down) of which is pretty much directly resulting from the whole subprime lending sh*tstorm.

Please... you're making Milton Friedman cry from beyond the grave...

ah well if you want to use 4.2% - then its fine. But it really doesn't matter - the fact remains that unemployment was lower when Bush started - significantly. The average unemployment is higher on average during the Bush years than under Clinton no matter whatever way you calculate it. Finally - yes September 11 happened - but you simply cannot use that as a panacea for everything. 9 11 did not cause the budget to be unbalanced by Bush - Bush did that quite well with out of control spending while lowering taxes, an endless war, etc.. etc..

Sorry DS you can't simply just ignore things you find inconvenient. Its simply ridiculous to quote the numbers Princella does. Its one step below selecting out the periods in the last year where there were the dow went up and ignoring when the dow went down.

Rana,

I had used the formula from the Functional Income Distribution and Aggregate Demand in the Euro Area from the Viennese University of Economics and Business Administration. The two formulas are not mutually exclusive, and are, in fact the same: you forgot to include profit in yours, that's the only difference and you didn't identify consumption GDP as GDP Y . My point was only that GDP from the consumption side isn’t definitive from the production side. In perfect theory, the consumption of production is the definition of GDP assuming no stockpiles or shortage of inventory. We have been in a situation of equilibrium for decades and therefore government budgets and expenditures have minimal impact on the production side of GDP.

The Fed, along with other financial markets has made money available and has lowered rates on that money to prevent a “lending crises.” The market slid because of the availability question and had stabilized based on Bernanke’s (and others’) actions. The Dow was trending up not down before today’s employment news. Greenspan (among others) has correctly IMO identified the nature of the roller coaster; it’s about fear. Historically, Financial Markets follow the economy, in spite of the rise in defaults (btw, that’s disingenuous to state a 25% increase; after all if I have 3 and add one more that, too is a 25% increase even though it’s still only one!) the economy is strong and the recession indicators are lower now than it was before the Dow fell.

AS for me; I all in in the equities markets. I'm willing to put my wallet where my mouth is; care to join me? Or are ya' chickin'?

(crickets churp)

Zeroballs and Zerobrains; it's "chirp," nitwit...

Rana and especially liberalT,

You guys are in way over your head in an economics debate with Bane.

Stop now before your completely schooled and embarassed.

neocon, pass the salt for the popcorn! liberalT is too dumb to keep his mouth shut.

You guys are in way over your head in an economics debate with Bane.

neo, at least Rana tries to appear knowledgable with his cherry-picking. As for libtardT, she would be in way over her head in a debate with a corpse...

Salve,

Typical of you liberals - take a snapshot in preference to a movie; the overall narrative of the economy is massive growth. You prefer to concentrate on one month's data...

Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 7, 2007 02:20 PM

The media is talking about a possible recession. Do little you think you know more than thousands of multi-million dollar companies then?

liberalT is correct, unemployment is up a little, you cannot argue with this, it's fact, but Bush can't and shouldn't make sure every last person in employed. The real question is what to do about it, people allready get unemployment payments, should we hook all the unemployed up with high paying bureaucracy jobs or something?

People lose jobs when their employers as observers to market see that they've made a mistake and have too many laborers, people hire them when as observers to market, they see that they don't have enough laborers.

The falacy that the socialist(liberalT) think, is that if you replace the 300 million observers trying to make the goods and service that everyone wants, with the feedback of profit, with just 1(the gov), without feedback, that somehow you will make better observations in the market. This is a stupid assumption, if you want full employment, you will just give people jobs making crap people don't want. This is a fact of all govenment organized economies. There's been tons of books written on this, it's called the socialist calculation problem.

"Government spending isn’t calculated in GDP" - Dasien Libsbane

Well there's a couple ways to calculate it, but if you don't use spending, you use tax reciepts, which is also up..., and no we don't calculate debt in it, but this only makes it worse because even though we didn't "spend" the money, the debt spending crowds out private spending, driving up the price of everything.

This is one of the reasons that GDP from income = GDP from consumption, even with borrowing added.

"Finally, China’s growth, although impressive from their standpoint is miniscule compared to our economy; US annual growth exceeds China's entire economy."

I was reading something the other day, how about their country is so corrupt and communist, that investing into Chinese buisness isn't a good investment, since if a buisness visibly makes too much money, local communist party members will randomly start stealing from you(unwritten "taxes").

So that their main source of this growth is really high savings invested into American investments. The Chinese are just piggybacking on our free market, which I though was funny.

But my point is the government doesn't grow the economy, individuals do, the government usually only wrecks it. Growth isn't because of the way the government has been being run, rather in spite of it.

The Census Bureau says that 36.5 million Americans–one in eight–are poor, and 47 million cannot afford health insurance for their families.

Your numbers do not tell the whole story.
Real employment has dropped every year Bush has been in office.

liberalT is correct, unemployment is up a little,...

And? Big deal, it's at 4.6 percent, which, by definition, is still fullemployment. libtardT is playing that Clinton vs. Bush crap, robert, and libtardT is still a moron. She comes here becuase she has no friends, and her family is probably too embarrassed to associate with her.

I sure hope we don't go into a recession; the last time, our installation department laid off ten workers, and our refab department cut our hours to 32 a week. I, being the superstar worker of my company, wasn't affected, but I felt bad for my co-workers. If it happens again, I may volunteer for the layoff--then I can sleep in, and draw unemployment checks, like libs do...